Recent Development: Fuster v. State: An Indigent Petitioner is Not Entitled to Counsel for a Post Conviction Petition as the Decision is Within the Court\u27s Discretion

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that Maryland Rule 4-707(b) does not entitle an indigent petitioner to counsel for purposes of a post conviction petition for DNA testing. Fuster v. State, 437 Md. 653, 657-58, 89 A.3d 1114, 1116 (2014). In addition, the court held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by failing to consider whether to appoint the petitioner counsel under under section 8-201 of the Maryland Criminal Procedure Code. Id. The court further held that the circuit court used the correct legal standard in ruling on the petition. Id. Finally, the court held that the petitioner failed to preserve for appellate review whether the circuit court clearly erred in concluding that the State conducted a reasonable search for the victim’s socks and shoes

Recent Development: Fuster v. State: An Indigent Petitioner is Not Entitled to Counsel for a Post Conviction Petition as the Decision is Within the Court\u27s Discretion

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that Maryland Rule 4-707(b) does not entitle an indigent petitioner to counsel for purposes of a post conviction petition for DNA testing. Fuster v. State, 437 Md. 653, 657-58, 89 A.3d 1114, 1116 (2014). In addition, the court held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by failing to consider whether to appoint the petitioner counsel under under section 8-201 of the Maryland Criminal Procedure Code. Id. The court further held that the circuit court used the correct legal standard in ruling on the petition. Id. Finally, the court held that the petitioner failed to preserve for appellate review whether the circuit court clearly erred in concluding that the State conducted a reasonable search for the victim’s socks and shoes

Anti-tumour necrosis factor discontinuation in inflammatory bowel disease patients in remission: study protocol of a prospective, multicentre, randomized clinical trial

Background: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease who achieve remission with anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) drugs may have treatment withdrawn due to safety concerns and cost considerations, but there is a lack of prospective, controlled data investigating this strategy. The primary study aim is to compare the rates of clinical remission at 1?year in patients who discontinue anti-TNF treatment versus those who continue treatment. Methods: This is an ongoing, prospective, double-blind, multicentre, randomized, placebo-controlled study in patients with Crohn?s disease or ulcerative colitis who have achieved clinical remission for ?6?months with an anti-TNF treatment and an immunosuppressant. Patients are being randomized 1:1 to discontinue anti-TNF therapy or continue therapy. Randomization stratifies patients by the type of inflammatory bowel disease and drug (infliximab versus adalimumab) at study inclusion. The primary endpoint of the study is sustained clinical remission at 1?year. Other endpoints include endoscopic and radiological activity, patient-reported outcomes (quality of life, work productivity), safety and predictive factors for relapse. The required sample size is 194 patients. In addition to the main analysis (discontinuation versus continuation), subanalyses will include stratification by type of inflammatory bowel disease, phenotype and previous treatment. Biological samples will be obtained to identify factors predictive of relapse after treatment withdrawal. Results: Enrolment began in 2016, and the study is expected to end in 2020. Conclusions: This study will contribute prospective, controlled data on outcomes and predictors of relapse in patients with inflammatory bowel disease after withdrawal of anti-TNF agents following achievement of clinical remission. Clinical trial reference number: EudraCT 2015-001410-1

Evaluation of prognostic risk models for postoperative pulmonary complications in adult patients undergoing major abdominal surgery: a systematic review and international external validation cohort study

Background Stratifying risk of postoperative pulmonary complications after major abdominal surgery allows clinicians to modify risk through targeted interventions and enhanced monitoring. In this study, we aimed to identify and validate prognostic models against a new consensus definition of postoperative pulmonary complications. Methods We did a systematic review and international external validation cohort study. The systematic review was done in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched MEDLINE and Embase on March 1, 2020, for articles published in English that reported on risk prediction models for postoperative pulmonary complications following abdominal surgery. External validation of existing models was done within a prospective international cohort study of adult patients (≥18 years) undergoing major abdominal surgery. Data were collected between Jan 1, 2019, and April 30, 2019, in the UK, Ireland, and Australia. Discriminative ability and prognostic accuracy summary statistics were compared between models for the 30-day postoperative pulmonary complication rate as defined by the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine Core Outcome Measures in Perioperative and Anaesthetic Care (StEP-COMPAC). Model performance was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCC). Findings In total, we identified 2903 records from our literature search; of which, 2514 (86·6%) unique records were screened, 121 (4·8%) of 2514 full texts were assessed for eligibility, and 29 unique prognostic models were identified. Nine (31·0%) of 29 models had score development reported only, 19 (65·5%) had undergone internal validation, and only four (13·8%) had been externally validated. Data to validate six eligible models were collected in the international external validation cohort study. Data from 11 591 patients were available, with an overall postoperative pulmonary complication rate of 7·8% (n=903). None of the six models showed good discrimination (defined as AUROCC ≥0·70) for identifying postoperative pulmonary complications, with the Assess Respiratory Risk in Surgical Patients in Catalonia score showing the best discrimination (AUROCC 0·700 [95% CI 0·683–0·717]). Interpretation In the pre-COVID-19 pandemic data, variability in the risk of pulmonary complications (StEP-COMPAC definition) following major abdominal surgery was poorly described by existing prognostication tools. To improve surgical safety during the COVID-19 pandemic recovery and beyond, novel risk stratification tools are required. Funding British Journal of Surgery Society